Judicial review is a legal process where a court reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public authority or body. It focuses on whether the correct legal procedures were followed and if the public authority had the power to make the decision, rather than judging the decision's merits or whether it was right or wrong.
Key Aspects of Judicial Review
- It involves reviewing decisions made by entities such as government departments, local councils, police forces, and regulatory bodies.
- The court examines whether the decision was made lawfully, fairly, and with proper consideration of relevant factors.
- Judicial review can be sought by individuals or organizations affected by a decision.
- Time limits apply for bringing a judicial review case, often within 3 months or less depending on the case type.
- Grounds for judicial review include illegality (lack of power or considering irrelevant factors), irrationality (unreasonableness), and procedural impropriety (unfair processes).
- Human rights breaches by public authorities can also be challenged through judicial review.
- If successful, the court may quash (nullify) the original decision and require it to be reconsidered lawfully, but it does not replace the original decision with its own.
Remedies and Outcomes
- Quashing order to nullify an unlawful decision.
- Prohibiting order to prevent an authority from acting beyond its powers.
- Other remedies might include declarations, injunctions, or mandatory orders.
Purpose and Limitations
- Judicial review ensures public bodies act within their legal bounds and follow fair procedures.
- It does not typically assess the merits of the decision or substitute the court's own decision.
- It helps uphold principles of legality, fairness, and respect for human rights in public administration.
This process exists in many jurisdictions that follow constitutional or administrative law principles and is a cornerstone of holding public authorities accountable under the law.
